Disgraced former FBI director Jim Comey proposed a hilarious hypothetical to excuse the two-year, $25 million witch hunt that was the Russia collusion investigation: what if Iran was similarly thought to have colluded with the Obama administration? Surely the American public would have demanded an investigation and surely the intelligence community would have complied?
During an interview with NBC’s Lester Holt aired Wednesday night, Comey turned the scenario around, suggesting that if the president had been Barack Obama and the interfering foreign power had been Iran, there would be no question that a thorough investigation would be necessary.
“Close your eyes. Again, change the names. Let me make one up for you,” said Comey, whom Trump fired in 2017. “The Iranians — this is totally made up — the Iranians interfere in the election to help elect Barack Obama because they think they’ll get a better nuclear deal from him. And during that election an Obama aide meets with the Iranians and talks about the dirt they have that will help Obama get elected. And the FBI finds out about that. We should not investigate that?”
Well, sir, the fact is, many Americans DID have a problem with the relationship Obama had with Iran and the Iran deal specifically. Granted, there wasn’t an allegation of collusion related to an election, but Obama did some other things with regard to Iran that ACTUALLY HAPPENED and looked pretty sketchy. And in fact did promote — at the expense of the United States — a foreign interest’s (and a hostile one at that) path to power.
But the really galling part of Comey’s little comparison is the harsh reality that conservatives who criticized Obama have never had the propaganda machine known as the mainstream media ready to promote their interests for 2 years to the tune of 533,000 articles, almost all alleging their particular point of view.
But that’s what progressives had in promoting the collusion illusion. As Rush Limbaugh noted in his show on March 25th, citing statistics from the Media research Center, that kind of media coverage certainly caused some damage to the republic, particularly on the world stage.
You think that hasn’t done some damage? You think the damage to the Trump presidency in the past two years, what it has done? If you’re the ChiCom leader in China, if you are Kim Jong-un in North Korea, if you’re one of these European socialists and you’re watching the American media, you think Trump’s gonna be a goner in two years, so why should you bother doing anything substantive with the United States if Donald Trump’s not even gonna be around?
I mean, it’s incalculable the damage that has been done to this country, to the American election system. The damage the media has done to itself is also incalculable, but they are never going to acknowledge it. They’re trying to cover up and, in fact, justify things they have been engaging in for over two and a half years.
I find this so incomprehensible because there never was any collusion. There was no reason to ever start this other than to get Donald Trump out of office. Here’s some things that we don’t know. We don’t know what evidence Comey and the FBI had to open this probe in the summer of 2016. There wasn’t any evidence. Everybody keeps talking about, we don’t know what evidence. There wasn’t any evidence! There never has been any evidence.
For Comey to even make the suggestion that Obama’s relationship with Iran would ever have been scrutinized in the way Mueller’s investigation has been promoted (primarily because the bias in the press tends to favor progressives and tends to target conservatives) is absurd and, frankly, insulting.